Linked by David Adams on Mon 3rd Oct 2011 17:33 UTC, submitted by Adurbe
Permalink for comment 491733
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-27
No, I never said EULA's are not legally-enforceable. I said -- as you quoted me -- that it's how effectively they can be enforced that matters.
As I mentioned earlier, the decision of the courts doesn't restrict individual users from putting OS X on non-Apple hardware. (Assuming the author of the arstechnica.com writer has it right.)
So...it is absolutist (or at least over-simplified) to say that EULA's are legally-enforceable. Dig it: companies are free to write EULAs, users are free to disobey said EULA's, and companies are then in turn free to test the EULA's in court.
May the most expensive legal team win.
Edited 2011-10-04 00:02 UTC